Category Archives: Budgets

Representative Garlick provided this email with the copy of the summary of legislative spending.

===================================

Attached is a memo regarding the Final Deficiency Supplemental Budget. This budget addresses issues of Health and Human Services, Storm Assistance to Municipalities, Job Creation, Time Sensitive Priorities and the Stabilization Fund.

 For the 13^th Norfolk District (Needham, Dover and Medfield) it meets the needs of some of our most vulnerable individuals and families receiving services from DDS (Developmental Disabilities Services) and DMH (Department of Mental Health). It also protects and preserves court services in Norfolk County until such time as the court administrator delivers a comprehensive report and plan.

 Importantly, there is a $350M deposit to the Stabilization Fund. Massachusetts is now only one of four states with a stabilization fund balance above $ 1 Billion dollars.

Finally, some towns in Norfolk County will qualify for December 2008 Ice Storm assistance, which I will be happy to work with you through the process.

 The passage of the Supplemental Budget now allows the Comptroller to “close the books” and the Legislature will  move forward with the disbursement of Local Aid in the following weeks.

=======================================

House 3695
Final Deficiency- Supplemental Budget
Spending Summary
Health and Human Services
• $8.2M -Clothing Allowance
• $6M -10 Day Bed Hold
• $SOOK -HIV Prevention Services
• $S.SM – DDS Respite and Family Services
• $SM – DDS Community Residential Services
• $3M – DMH Adult Support Services
• $107K – Naturally Occurring Retirement Communities
Storm Assistance to Municipalities
• $10M – Tornado Assistance for Western MA
• $6.2M – December 2008 Ice Storms
• $2.8M – Spring 2010 Flood Money for South Eastern MA
Job Creation
• $3M – Adult Basic Education
• $lM – Quality Care Fund
• $lOM – Expansion ofthe Low Income House Tax Credit Program
• $38M – Infrastructure Development Projects
• $SOOK – STEM Pipeline Fund
Time sensitive priorities
• $20M – Trial Court ($12M in direct funding and $8M in additional revenue retention) and
Language Prohibiting Closures.
• $7S0K – Adams Art Grants
• $10M – Salary Reserve (if revenues are sufficient in January to support this program)
• $300K – UMass Amherst Drug Lab
• $2S0K – Mass Service Alliance
• $SOOK – Adopted/Foster Care Children Tuition Reimbursement
Stabilization Fund
• $3S0M – Deposit to Stabilization Fund
0\ $SOM additional to the Governor’s proposal
o MA is now one of four states with a stabilization fund balance above $lB

Email from MEMA re FEMA meeting today with Town of Medfield.

================================

To All Chief Municipal Officers and Emergency Management Directors from Communities of Norfolk County:

At the request of Governor Patrick, President Obama issued a Pre-Landfall Disaster Declaration for every community in Massachusetts on Friday, August 26, prior to Tropical Storm Irene impacting us. That Pre-Landfall Declaration assured federal assistance to communities in Massachusetts to cover 75% of storm related expenses related to emergency protective measures taken in response to the storm. Those emergency protective measures include emergency staff OT costs, equipments usage and limited debris removal.

After the storm, in an effort to gain a Major Disaster Declaration from the President, I asked all communities of Norfolk County to submit an Initial Damage Assessment (IDA) Form to better understand the overall and actual costs associated with TS Irene. A Major Disaster Declaration would cover costs associated with infrastructure damages and debris removal beyond what the Pre-Landfall Declaration includes. I’m happy to inform you that the combined IDA Reports we received from your communities reached the threshold necessary to trigger the next step in the process to gaining a Major Disaster Declaration. That next step is for FEMA to visit each individual community to validate their estimated costs.

MEMA staff members are currently making calls to schedule Preliminary Damage Assessment (PDA) meetings next Tuesday and Wednesday. If possible, please have as many department heads available as necessary to ensure all of FEMA’s questions can be adequately answered. Also, please make every effort to accommodate the time we’ve schedule for your community’s visit as we have multiple communities to visit in a short period of time while the FEMA assessors are here.

In advance of the PDA team’s arrival in your community, please follow the below guidance in gathering your storm costs.

1)      If your community used its own town labor forces to perform emergency work only overtime costs are eligible expenses. Supporting documentation for FEMA would include copies of payroll reports or timesheets.

2)     Town owned equipment utilized in response to the storm is eligible for reimbursement. For example, a 350 kw generator runs at a FEMA estimated cost of $95 an hour. A police vehicle running stationary and guarding a downed wire runs at an estimated cost of $16.25 per hour, weather the person behind the wheel is on OT or not. Please be able to provide a document or spreadsheet compiling all equipment costs.  A list of FEMA approved rates can be found attached to this email and here –http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/pa/eqrates.shtm

3)     If you hired a contractor to assist with storm-related cleanup, please provide a copy of the contract and paid invoices.  If you purchased materials, please provide a copy of the paid invoice showing quantity and verification the purchase was paid.

4)     Loss of community revenues related to the storm is ineligible.

Don’t worry if you’ve realized that your community has incurred more costs than you reported on your IDA. The IDA can simply be a starting point for the PDA meeting. Any costs that can be verified on the day of your meeting can eventually be submitted for reimbursement.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me directly with any questions as this is my top priority in the next week.

I also have some availability if you’d rather meet in person in the next couple of days.

Thank you for your assistance and cooperation in this matter.

-James

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
James A. Mannion
Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency
Region II Manager – SE Massachusetts
cell: 508-922-3389 fax: 508-697-8869

Medfield received $64,386.90 from FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) today, per Mike Sullivan.  It represents reimbursement of 75% of eligible costs for the winter snowstorm.  We have not heard yet whether Norfolk County qualifies for reimbursement for tropical storm Irene.  The money to fund FEMA is being held up by a fight in Congress over how to fund it, so we probably won’t hear for some time.

Donna Cimeno and Joy Ricciuto put a lot of time into this and did a great job in gathering the required information, per Mike.  Kudos and thanks to Donna and Joy!

At the end of the fiscal year, 6/30/11, the Town of Medfield had $31,103,640.09 in cash.  About $13m. was School Building Assistance reimbursement monies being held to pay off the debt on the school building borrowing, $9m. was various trust funds the town holds for things like pensions and health insurance, and the rest was mainly the float on the town’s operating monies.

Who should pay for special services they get from the town and who should get them for free?  This is the question raised by MEMO’s pending application to permit Medfield Day.  This is the issue because the town provides to MEMO the services of the Medfield police and DPW employees that in turn both allow Medfield Day to occur and get cleaned up.  The town does not charge for those services, even though MEMO makes enough money from Medfield Day to pay.

The questions I have raised are ones about essential fairness, first, what groups should pay the town for the cost of loaned town employees, and second, whether the town does this for all groups.  If the town does not give free town services to all groups who ask, as I suspect, then is it fair to provide free services for one group and not for another?  And how does the town decide which groups get the town employees to work for them for free and which groups have to pay?

I estimate the cost to the town of the overtime for the town employees who work to make Medfield Day happen at about $3-5,000.  MEMO does not pay for those town services, so the town is effectively subsidizing MEMO’s Medfield Day by that amount.  The amount is not large, but the principle is.

MEMO is not a charity, it is an association of businesses, akin to a chamber of commerce, whose stated purpose is to promote its member businesses.  There is no question that MEMO is a great organization and that it runs great events for the town, at little or no cost.  It was those great services to the town that caused me to become a MEMO member – that and the fact that getting eight dinners a year for the $100 membership fee was a bargain.

The issue is whether any group, including MEMO, should pay its fair share of the costs when it costs the town money for the group to put on its events.  The last year I ran Medfield Day, about six years ago, MEMO made a profit of $18,000 from the event, and at the time MEMO members suggested using those profits to promote their member businesses.  I have questioned whether the Medfield Day profits, that are only as large as they are because the town pays to provide MEMO with free labor, should be allowed to get plowed back into the MEMO member businesses or the subsidized dinners, or would it just be fairer to the town for MEMO to pay for whatever town services it uses.

At the last the Board of Selectmen meeting, we voted 2-1 to permit Medfield Day without charging MEMO for town services.  I voted against it because I feel Medfield Day should be revenue neutral for the town – the town should continue to provide the services and MEMO should reimburse the town for the cost of those services.  I am told prior that the vote can not stand because of conflict of interest issues, so that we will vote again tonight.

Tonight I am looking to learn how our town departments determine which groups may get free services, which do not, and how is that determination made.  What follows is the email I sent this morning to the Chief of Police about his list from yesterday of all the groups for which the police provide special services.
*********************************************
Chief,
Mike Sullivan had Evelyn forward to the Board of Selectmen your list of town events for which the police provide special services (copy attached). Thank you for putting that together. I still have a few questions.

For me the whole issue over MEMO’s payment or non-payment for the town’s costs of the services provided by town employees (police and highway) related to Medfield Day is really one of essential fairness, namely is MEMO asking for and getting special treatment that other groups in town do not get or do we treat all groups as we treat MEMO. From my own experience in putting on town events, I know that MEMO was not charged for town services in the past for town services provided at Medfield Day or its other events, whereas the Medfield Park & Recreation Commission was charged for police services at the Medfield Night Fireworks.

To determine the answer to the question posed above, the Selectmen need to know which events and which groups get charged and which do not get charged for town provided services.  So to answer that question, we need to know of those events you provided on your list, what groups do pay for the additional police services you provided and what groups do not pay for police services for special events, and how that determination is made.

Therefore, to assist the Board of Selectmen in that evaluation, can you please indicate for us:

1 – What groups and/or events on your list pay for police services, and which do not?

2 – Which events are covered by police working their regular shifts, versus which require extra additional paid police shifts?

3 – How you make the determination of whom to charge and whom to not charge?

Thank you for your courtesies and assistance with this matter. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best,
Pete
*******************************************

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

LEGISLATURE ENACTS MUNICIPAL HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM ACT BY OVERWHELMING VOTE, GOVERNOR TO SIGN INTO LAW TODAY

MAJOR VICTORY FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAPS ACTION ON STATE BUDGET

July 12, 2011 — In a tightly coordinated orchestration of events, Governor Deval Patrick and the Legislature are completing final action on municipal health insurance reform.  Acting swiftly during formal sessions yesterday afternoon, the Legislature adopted four consensus amendments submitted by the Governor earlier in the day.  The House voted 149-2 to support the final version, and the Senate followed suit by a 37-0 margin.  The Governor will formally sign the Municipal Health Insurance Reform Act today in a ceremony in his office.

The final legislation is a strong reform act that removes ultimate health insurance plan design decision-making from collective bargaining, saves taxpayers money, preserves essential local services, protects municipal union jobs, guarantees equity with state employee health benefits, and provides municipal unions with more bargaining power than state unions.  It is a balanced and fair reform that would allow cities and towns to save $100 million in avoided health insurance costs, while providing a voice for municipal unions in the process.  Cities and towns will be able to use this reform to provide relief for local taxpayers, protect essential services, and preserve thousands of municipal jobs.

The MMA applauds the leadership of Speaker Robert DeLeo, Chairman Brian Dempsey, Vice Chairman Stephen Kulik, Governor Deval Patrick, Secretary for Administration and Finance Jay Gonzalez, President Therese Murray, Chairman Stephen Brewer, Vice Chairman Steven Baddour, budget conferees Rep. Vinny deMacedo and Sen. Michael Knapik, Public Service Committee Chairs Rep. John Scibak and Sen. Katherine Clark, and all of the members of the House of Representatives and Senate who have advocated for reform this session.

Of course, this victory would not have been possible without the unyielding leadership and advocacy provided by hundreds of municipal and community leaders, and over a dozen civic organizations over the past several years.  The Board of Directors and staff of the MMA extend their deep appreciation to all those who have fought for reform and made this victory possible.

MMA OVERVIEW OF THE FINAL MUNICIPAL HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM LAW

Overall, the municipal health insurance reform act is a strong reform law that is fair and balanced for all parties.  It provides real reform and savings for communities, while giving municipal unions a voice in the process.Â

• The process is streamlined and clear: In cities, City Councils vote once to accept the statute, and in towns, Boards of Selectmen also vote once to accept the new law.Â

• After local acceptance, the appropriate municipal authority (generally the executive) can make health insurance plan design changes or transfer communities into the GIC following a structured process.Â

• The executive develops the proposed plan design changes (no plan could have higher co-pays, deductibles, tiered network co-payments or other cost-sharing plan features that exceed the dollar amounts in the most subscribed plan in the GIC), or a proposal to transfer subscribers into the GIC, and estimates the first-year savings that would result.

• The executive then notifies the Insurance Advisory Board of the total estimated one-year savings resulting from the plan design changes or transfer to the GIC, and provides documentation to the IAC.

• After discussion with the IAC as to the estimated savings, the executive convenes a meeting of a new public employee committee (PEC) which is composed of a representative of every union (bargaining unit) and a retiree representative.  Each participant has an equal vote, except the retiree representative, who shall have a 10% vote.Â

• The executive provides notice to the PEC detailing the proposed changes, the analysis and estimate of its anticipated savings, and a proposal to mitigate, moderate or cap the impact of the changes on subscribers, including retirees, low-income subscribers and subscribers with high out-of-pocket costs who would otherwise be disproportionately impacted.

• The executive and the PEC would have 30 days from the date of notice to negotiate over the proposed plan design changes and the executive’s plan on how to share a portion of the first-year savings with employees, especially with retirees and those most impacted by the changes.  A majority vote of the PEC is required to reach an agreement. Â

• If there is a written agreement by the end of the 30-day period, the community would be able to to implement the plan as agreed.Â

• If there is no agreement after 30 days, the matter would be referred to a “municipal health insurance review panel” composed of a municipal and labor representative and an impartial third member chosen from a list of individuals with professional experience in dispute mediation and municipal finance or municipal health benefits provided by A&F.  If there is no agreement on the third member after 3 business days, the A&F secretary would choose the third member.Â

• If the proposed plan design changes do not exceed the GIC benchmark, the panel must approve the community’s immediate implementation of the changes.  If the community is seeking to join the GIC, the panel must approve the transfer if the community can demonstrate that the savings would 5 percent greater than the savings that could be achieved by implementing plan design changes to current plans.

• The panel would have 10 days to: 1) confirm the estimated monetary savings, to be substantiated by documentation provided by the executive; 2) review the proposal to mitigate, moderate or cap the impact of the changes on subscribers, including retirees, low-income subscribers and subscribers with high out-of-pocket costs who would otherwise be disproportionately impacted; and 3) concur with the community that the proposed mitigation plan is sufficient.

• The review panel may determine the mitigation proposal to be insufficient, and may require additional savings to be shared with subscribers, however, the total cost of any mitigation plan developed by the panel (such as establishing an HRA or other similar steps) could not exceed 25% of the total first-year premium savings (the municipal and employee savings combined), even if the mitigation plan is in place more than one year.  The panel is prohibited from imposing any change to contribution ratios.

• Once the mitigation funds are expended, all mitigation plan obligations on the part of the community will expire.

• The decisions of the municipal health insurance review panel would be binding.

• Regional and joint purchasing groups would clearly be allowed to establish a common plan design structure, although participating communities would each go through the steps above to notify unions and retirees of the estimated savings, and follow the 30-day negotiation process and 10-day review panel process regarding the plan design changes and structuring the mitigation plan.

• The Secretary of Administration and Finance will promulgate rules and regulations regarding the administrative procedures for the 30-day negotiation period and the municipal health insurance review panel, and issue guidelines in evaluating which subscribers would be disproportionately affected by plan design changes or transfer to the GIC.

• The plan design changes or enrollment in the GIC could be implemented immediately, following the above-described process, except in communities that have collective bargaining agreements or Section 19 agreements in place that set specific co-pays and deductibles that are different from the new plan.  In those cases, communities must wait until the initial term of the CBA or Section 19 agreement has expired to implement changes for those bargaining groups that have such agreements in place.

• For fiscal 2012, the reform plan would give cities and towns three opportunities to transfer subscribers to the GIC during the year (on January 1, April 1 and July 1), after a 4-month notification to the Commission.  After that, enrollment in the GIC would occur each July 1, with notification by the previous December 1.  The contribution ratios for employees entering the GIC will remain the same, but any future changes in the contribution ratios would have to be approved through full collective bargaining.

• Importantly, the final bill deleted a Senate-voted section that would have forced dozens of communities to increase the municipal contribution to retiree health plans, and instead replaced it with a reasonable provision that delays any change in the contribution ratios paid by retirees for a three-year period for any community that uses the reform act to implement changes.  Communities making such changes could not increase retiree contribution ratios from July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2014, unless the contribution ratio changes were approved prior to July 1, 2011.

• As previously announced the new law would require all eligible retirees to be enrolled in a Medicare health plan (governmental units shall pay any federal penalties associated with a transfer to Medicare Part B).

GOVERNOR SIGNS KEY LOCAL AID ITEMS IN FISCAL 2012 BUDGET, INCLUDING SUPPLEMENTAL ONE-TIME LOCAL AID PROVISION

Governor Patrick supported a number of the MMA’s major budget priorities when he signed the fiscal 2012 state budget into law earlier this morning:

• The Governor signed a special MMA-backed budget provision that should provide a one-time supplemental local aid appropriation of $65 million to cities and towns by October 2011.  The provision requires that 50 percent of any “aggregate balance of appropriations,” (unused appropriations in state budget accounts) not to exceed $65 million, be distributed to cities and towns not later than October 31, 2011.  The final allocation determinations will be made when the state closes the books on the fiscal 2011 budget, a process that could take two to three months.  At the budget signing ceremony yesterday morning, Secretary for Administration and Finance Jay Gonzalez stated that he expects the final distribution amount to be $65 million.  The MMA will be monitoring the implementation of this provision very closely.

• The Governor approved an $80 million increase in the Special Education Circuit Breaker program, bringing the account up to $213 million.

• The Regional School Transportation reimbursement account is funded at $43.5 million, a $3 million increase over fiscal 2011 levels.

• The Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILOT) account is funded at $27.3 million, a $1 million increase over fiscal 2011 levels.